@pablovi
Technologically impressive art... well thats a new concept. If you mean that its not anything we haven't seen before, then I agree. None of it is.

Click to expand...

For 3D realtime graphics to impress they need to show something that couldn't be done before with other hardware. Better lighting, better textures, more assets, narrow depth of field, etc... The Wii U will certainly show something better than current gen, but since next gen will be at E3, nothing on the Wii U will wow people like the PS4, Xbone footage.

Click to expand...

I weep for the future when graphics > gameplay quality

Click to expand...

No one is talking about game quality, this is a specs/graphics thread.

@pablovi
Unity is pretty confident to have openly taken on EPIC's Unreal engine 4 and HAVOK are pretty chuffed at thier Wii U hardware integration.
People creating middleware with Wii U hardware specifics in mind do tend to promote this feeling that something goods comming up. That said, whether it does is another story.

For 3D realtime graphics to impress they need to show something that couldn't be done before with other hardware. Better lighting, better textures, more assets, narrow depth of field, etc... The Wii U will certainly show something better than current gen, but since next gen will be at E3, nothing on the Wii U will wow people like the PS4, Xbone footage.

Click to expand...

I weep for the future when graphics > gameplay quality

Click to expand...

No one is talking about game quality, this is a specs/graphics thread.

Click to expand...

And yet, people are speaking as if they already know the true graphical capabilities of the system, but no one really knows. Will it be on the same level as PS4 or Xbox Next, probably not and I am aware of that potentiality, but the gap won't be so wide as to notice a massive difference. It won't be the same gap that we saw in generations past. If people start going around claiming that it will be graphically worse and the Xbox 360 and PS3, then that alone will prove their idiocy. The console's main focus isn't raw unadulterated power. The difference will be marginal at best, but no N64 to PS2-like gap.

No one is talking about game quality, this is a specs/graphics thread.

Click to expand...

And yet, people are speaking as if they already know the true graphical capabilities of the system, but no one really knows. Will it be on the same level as PS4 or Xbox Next, probably not and I am aware of that potentiality, but the gap won't be so wide as to notice a massive difference. It won't be the same gap that we saw in generations past. If people start going around claiming that it will be graphically worse and the Xbox 360 and PS3, then that alone will prove their idiocy. The console's main focus isn't raw unadulterated power. The difference will be marginal at best, but no N64 to PS2-like gap.

Click to expand...

We don't know the full potential, and yeah, it's better than current gen consoles, but it's not as good as the PS4, don't know anything, and haven't watched running on the Xboxone.

And that's all I said, if anything is gonna wow people it's certainly the PS4, graphically.

No one is talking about game quality, this is a specs/graphics thread.

Click to expand...

And yet, people are speaking as if they already know the true graphical capabilities of the system, but no one really knows. Will it be on the same level as PS4 or Xbox Next, probably not and I am aware of that potentiality, but the gap won't be so wide as to notice a massive difference. It won't be the same gap that we saw in generations past. If people start going around claiming that it will be graphically worse and the Xbox 360 and PS3, then that alone will prove their idiocy. The console's main focus isn't raw unadulterated power. The difference will be marginal at best, but no N64 to PS2-like gap.

Click to expand...

We don't know the full potential, and yeah, it's better than current gen consoles, but it's not as good as the PS4, don't know anything, and haven't watched running on the Xboxone.

And that's all I said, if anything is gonna wow people it's certainly the PS4, graphically.

Click to expand...

I agree that the ps4 has the most potential to wow people but I am unsure how the cinemas will transfer into the gameplay; all the wiiu has to do is keep pace with the X1 and make their console specific games look great

PS4 doesn't impress me. Now if they took the PS3, redid the CELL config, added 4GB and upgraded the GPU I'd be all over that.
Woulda cost them less and extended the life of a system that never had enough thought put into it in the first place.
If they made the RAM and GPU swappable I'd be cheering.

they will "try" to suck pc market into them. But I really doubt, nobody will buy them. The pc market will pull them in and they will vanish, at least one of these... Someone told me that. I smell victims in this generation, because of their greedyness.

@celticacos
Yah, I know just not ready to ditch my PS3. Honestly though, all these upgraded component integration units Sony shovelled out but not one addressed the underutilised CELL and its surrounds. Bit pathetic.
In my opinion they were in a unique position to capitalise on PS3, year by year and entirely missed the boat. Coz lets face it, how many people bought a slim with a perfectly good working fat?

@pablovi
Technologically impressive art... well thats a new concept. If you mean that its not anything we haven't seen before, then I agree. None of it is.

Click to expand...

For 3D realtime graphics to impress they need to show something that couldn't be done before with other hardware. Better lighting, better textures, more assets, narrow depth of field, etc... The Wii U will certainly show something better than current gen, but since next gen will be at E3, nothing on the Wii U will wow people like the PS4, Xbone footage.

Click to expand...

Nintendo's creative use of colors is often a wow factor for me, the vibrancy in their graphics can battle depression . Sometimes simplicity can be wow worthy.

No one is talking about game quality, this is a specs/graphics thread.

Click to expand...

And yet, people are speaking as if they already know the true graphical capabilities of the system, but no one really knows. Will it be on the same level as PS4 or Xbox Next, probably not and I am aware of that potentiality, but the gap won't be so wide as to notice a massive difference. It won't be the same gap that we saw in generations past. If people start going around claiming that it will be graphically worse and the Xbox 360 and PS3, then that alone will prove their idiocy. The console's main focus isn't raw unadulterated power. The difference will be marginal at best, but no N64 to PS2-like gap.

Click to expand...

We don't know the full potential, and yeah, it's better than current gen consoles, but it's not as good as the PS4, don't know anything, and haven't watched running on the Xboxone.

And that's all I said, if anything is gonna wow people it's certainly the PS4, graphically.

Oh no a developer saying positive things about the Wii U, lets hurry up and dismiss it asap. LOL Shin'en has already stated that the PS4 is a lot more powerful than the Wii U, but what they are saying is still significant, because so many people want to paint the Wii U as a console that is barely on par with current gen, and Shin'en is outright declaring that as a bogus statement. The difference in console power isnt insignificant, but look at a high end PC game, the difference between minumum recommended settings and the settings needed to run the game on ultra settings is every bit the difference that we are seeing between the Wii U and PS4.

The idea that the PS4 is so monumentally more powerful than the Wii U that a game made for PS4 could no way be scaled down to for Wii U is totally false. The range of PC hardware requirements for high end games shows this to be true. Sure, a super high end PS4 game may have to run in 600p on Wii U, but the fact is that it can be done.

Iwata recently came out and said that Nintendo is not interested in coming back to the tech wars with Sony and Microsoft, and that just like the Wii they are trying to offer something different and unique with the intent that consumers will enjoy and embrace the platform as a viable form of entertainment. No one here is arguing that the Wii U is less powerful than the PS4, but will the difference on screen be night at day? I dont think so personally, but everyone here has their own opinion of that, and we will have to let the games speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

People made this same argument about the Wii and PS3/360. Turns out, most developers did not want to design games for that low of a denominator.

And in a few years, when PS4/One become lower, mid range tech, we will see that porting to Wii U will become even more difficult as high end PCs will make the Wii U even more outdated once the PS4/One start to show their limitations.

Click to expand...

There is definitely some truth to what your saying, but this will only apply to those developers using graphics as their number one selling point. Its kind of like Crysis, its a mediocre first person shooter that sold based on the fact that it had insane visuals for the time. The real question will be how many games are developed trying to push the technical boundaries, and how many will be developed trying to revolutionize gameplay and creative concepts. The Indie developers have already proven that their is a huge market for unique game experiences that in no way are cutting edge on a technical level. Call of Duty was able to work on Wii, a console that was 20 times less powerful than the 360/PS3, I doubt Treyarch/IW would really have huge trouble getting the game to run on Wii U, a system that is 4-6 times less powerful than the competition.

Nintendo also runs a 5-6 year life cycle, so in 3 years from now Wii U will be entering its twilight years, while the X1 and PS4 will be right in the middle of their life cycle if Sony and Microsoft have their way.

Its about time someone steps up and declares Nintendo as the only one truly improving the control interface. Sony has used essentially the same controller now for a decade, and Microsoft has been a pretty simple evolution as well. Not saying their controllers are bad, but Nintendo should get some credit for trying to reach out and see if their is anything better. Red Steel 2 and Zelda SS both showed that motion controls could improve the experience over a conventional controller, and Nintendo needs to showcase that the gamepad is far more "next gen" than either the PS4 or X1 controllers could ever claim to be. There is more than one area to evolve and improve the system, and Nintendo has banked on improving the control interface two generations in a row while the competition has simply evolved their graphics processing hardware. Hey, there are a lot of people that simply want more of the same, and if thats you, you will love the X1 and PS4, but if your looking for something different and unique, then the Wii U is likely to be far more attractive because its offering something truly different. Theres nothing wrong with wanting more of the same, but dont think for a minute that everyone is in that boat, I was nearly done with buying consoles early prior to the Wii being revealed. I was bored of more of the same, but Wii sent things in a totally different direction, and reinvigorated my passion for games. Playing competitively with my family in Wii Sports was some of the most fun I had had with games since the N64 days playing Goldeneye and the THQ wrestling games with my buddies in middle school. I for one and glad Nintendo is the odd man out, we already have two manufactures that offer nearly identical consoles, I don't need Nintendo being the third tier.

Sony’s Shuhei Yoshida recently confirmed that remote-play via PS Vita will be mandatory for PlayStation 4 games; does this make it more likely thatdevs will port games to the wiiu, since vita pairing needs similar controls?

Sony’s Shuhei Yoshida recently confirmed that remote-play via PS Vita will be mandatory for PlayStation 4 games; does this make it more likely thatdevs will port games to the wiiu, since vita pairing needs similar controls?

Edit: negligible may have been kind of a strong word, but what I'm trying to get across is that in no way are we seeing a grand canyon of a difference like we were last gen, and as much as some dont want to admit, when you get down to how much resources the xbone puts in stuff other than gaming, what's left is not the whole gen ahead of wii u like most were betting on

The EA footage shown at the Xbox One event was not actual gameplay, Activision isn't using a next gen engine with cod ghosts and Naughty Dog has stated they will be using the same engine from ps3 to the ps4.

The EA footage shown at the Xbox One event was not actual gameplay, Activision isn't using a next gen engine with cod ghosts and Naughty Dog has stated they will be using the same engine from ps3 to the ps4.

Why? because I don't spout the partyline concerning popular concept in computer architecture?
Or maybe because I don't vaunt your x86 PC console to the high heavens?
Here's an idea Phrix. Why don't you go get some real firsthand knowledge with a RISC based terminal?
Coz its expensive and you get what you pay for, lets be under no illusions about that.
...under a rock ideed.

Phrixotrichus said:

Call it what you want. The classic "RISC = faster" is long gone.

Click to expand...

You're mistaking that with its evolved beyond your means or desire to keep up with it. Lets not change the subject though. I was talking about 'pipes' and RISC derrived pipes are shorter, double-wide pipes thus faster.
Both architectural bases are defined by this structure.

@mjbd@okhato
Hadn't Nintendo already said that there was a new console already in the works for 2016? Seem to remember reading that.

The PS4 and XBOX One's integrated features will suck-up alot of that RAM. Each unit will most likely have 3GB of RAM available for games, which is a wopping amount for a games console.
The services most likely won't hit the RAM pools so much, once the units up and running, then enabling services will consolidate as they do on PC. The hardcoded features like DVR will chew-up resources though.
Not that it matters, both are designed to accomodate everything the decks offer.

[ multiple posts with no reply in between is considered spamming and is against the TOS - genci ]

The EA footage shown at the Xbox One event was not actual gameplay, Activision isn't using a next gen engine with cod ghosts and Naughty Dog has stated they will be using the same engine from ps3 to the ps4.

Next gen graphics upgrade? I think not.

Click to expand...

And it would be idiotic to think that. In the case of Activision and Naughty Dog, they just aren't building new engines from scratch. Instead they are taking their existing engines and building onto them in ways that take advantage of the new hardware. This in no way implies that we will not see a leap in graphical fidelity.

The EA footage shown at the Xbox One event was not actual gameplay, Activision isn't using a next gen engine with cod ghosts and Naughty Dog has stated they will be using the same engine from ps3 to the ps4.

Next gen graphics upgrade? I think not.

Click to expand...

And it would be idiotic to think that. In the case of Activision and Naughty Dog, they just aren't building new engines from scratch. Instead they are taking their existing engines and building onto them in ways that take advantage of the new hardware. This in no way implies that we will not see a leap in graphical fidelity.

Click to expand...

But don't you think the trailer from the Madden Ignite Engine is disappointing now we know it isn't actual gameplay? Nothing we saw from the Xbox One announcement showed next gen promise. From Forza to ghosts, we saw nothing.

The EA footage shown at the Xbox One event was not actual gameplay, Activision isn't using a next gen engine with cod ghosts and Naughty Dog has stated they will be using the same engine from ps3 to the ps4.

Next gen graphics upgrade? I think not.

Click to expand...

And it would be idiotic to think that. In the case of Activision and Naughty Dog, they just aren't building new engines from scratch. Instead they are taking their existing engines and building onto them in ways that take advantage of the new hardware. This in no way implies that we will not see a leap in graphical fidelity.

Click to expand...

But don't you think the trailer from the Madden Ignite Engine is disappointing now we know it isn't actual gameplay? Nothing we saw from the Xbox One announcement showed next gen promise. From Forza to ghosts, we saw nothing.

Click to expand...

I thought that Forza looked stunning. Yeah, it's a bummer that EA chose to go with pre rendered footage, but they said that all of the assets were from their new game engine. I guess we'll just have to wait for more at E3, where the real games will be.

And it would be idiotic to think that. In the case of Activision and Naughty Dog, they just aren't building new engines from scratch. Instead they are taking their existing engines and building onto them in ways that take advantage of the new hardware. This in no way implies that we will not see a leap in graphical fidelity.

Click to expand...

But don't you think the trailer from the Madden Ignite Engine is disappointing now we know it isn't actual gameplay? Nothing we saw from the Xbox One announcement showed next gen promise. From Forza to ghosts, we saw nothing.

Click to expand...

I thought that Forza looked stunning. Yeah, it's a bummer that EA chose to go with pre rendered footage, but they said that all of the assets were from their new game engine. I guess we'll just have to wait for more at E3, where the real games will be.

Click to expand...

I hope they can display some great looking games. I plan to buy a ps4 either way, but you're right, we will see at e3.

But don't you think the trailer from the Madden Ignite Engine is disappointing now we know it isn't actual gameplay? Nothing we saw from the Xbox One announcement showed next gen promise. From Forza to ghosts, we saw nothing.

Click to expand...

I thought that Forza looked stunning. Yeah, it's a bummer that EA chose to go with pre rendered footage, but they said that all of the assets were from their new game engine. I guess we'll just have to wait for more at E3, where the real games will be.

Click to expand...

I hope they can display some great looking games. I plan to buy a ps4 either way, but you're right, we will see at e3.

The difference in in language when it come to RISK and CISK processors may not be as significant these days, but the design difference between the processors is still significant. How many CISK cpu's do you see that have only 5 stages? With the PS3 and 360 CPU's IBM was actually more or less mimicking the design philosophy of modern CISK processors, lots of stages and real high clock speeds. Unfortunately those processors are considered terrible performers when it comes to instructions per clock, and IBM has since reverted back to its roots with short pipelines and lower clock speeds. It doesnt really matter what CPU is used, its all about the performance, and how much work can it get done per frame. The Wii U may not have a powerhouse CPU, but anyone who thinks that the Jag is much better is kidding themselves.

Aside from the graphics (which is one of the stand out features of REmake and still hold up today), the GameCube REmake version of Resident Evil is the definitive version of the first Resident Evil game with all of the other features and improvements it adds to the original game in addition to visuals.

The remake features all-new graphics and sound and also incorporates gameplay elements from the earlier installments (such as the use of body language and the 180 degree turn). While the overall plot remained mostly unchanged (with the exception of adding the George Trevor diaries), several new areas and rooms were added to the game, including a graveyard and a cabin in the woods. The original live-action FMV segments are replaced by CG versions, and the voice acting was completely re-recorded with new actors. Chris and Jill are still the only two selectable characters. However, if Chris gets poisoned by Yawn, you have to play as Rebecca Chambers to get serum for Chris; there are also some other occasions when you have to play as Rebecca. Most of the puzzles have been changed, and the player's character is now also equipped with a defensive weapon that can be used while being grabbed by the enemy. It is necessary in this game to decapitate or burn zombies to prevent them from regenerating later in the game as the fast and deadly "Crimson Heads." The four crests from the original (sun, moon, wind, and star) used to unlock the door to the courtyard are still present, but instead are used to obtain the Colt Python (magnum) in the graveyard. Another change in the game was the environment: several picture display cases were seen shattered, implied to be either from Albert Wesker himself or Barry Burton under Wesker's influence in order to cover up Wesker's involvement in Umbrella. In the original game, the picture display cases were not shattered.

Click to expand...

The game also features many additional modes, secrets, and various endings over the original, as well as restoring the George Trevor sub-plot from the pre-release versions of the original game, while adding his daughter Lisa into the game as a transformed monster (and source of the G-virus). Other additions bring Umbrella researcher William Birkin and Alexia Ashford into the overall plot to make links between the games more clear and numerous.Shinji Mikami said that the remake is 70% different from the original.

small correction. The gamecube did not sell well enough for RE4. RE4 for PS2 was announced before the GC version released so if the decision was based on software sales then they used a time machine.

Click to expand...

>Game originally slated as Nintendo system exclusive
>Poor performance of Nintendo system results in lower-than-expected install base
>Game goes multi-platform before release

Sounds familiar?

Click to expand...

I think rayman was always going to be multiplatform despite what some here think. (Rayman historically sold well on a variety of platforms) I think most games are simply better off being multiplatform. I do think Rayman was going to come to WiiU first and that was the disturbing part. If you are a 3rd party developer and somehow through the magic of your game not sucking your game would sell at least 200,000 units on another console then it makes almost no sense not to port it to other platforms though. Nintendos version will still be the best since the game was designed with a screen in mind. The PSVita option will probably be there somehow and maybe Microsofts tablet library will be used too but ultimately this machine is the only one with everything needed to enjoy this game best in the box.

RE4 was factually always going to multiplatform. They announced it before the release and it released very quickly following the gc version with loads of extra content included. This doesn't happen if you were always intending it as an exclusive. I do think if Nintendo had a dominant sales position in hardware units that they would have been able to pressure the devs into not announcing the port a little longer but that's really all that they would have done. The port would have still made sense and the title would have still gone multiplatform.

Why? because I don't spout the partyline concerning popular concept in computer architecture?
Or maybe because I don't vaunt your x86 PC console to the high heavens?
Here's an idea Phrix. Why don't you go get some real firsthand knowledge with a RISC based terminal?
Coz its expensive and you get what you pay for, lets be under no illusions about that.
...under a rock ideed.

Click to expand...

I work with IBM PPC on a daily basis, just like I work on x86 workstations.
I know what I´m talking about. You just seem to repeat 10 year old wikipedia articles....
Sorry, but your generalizations are absolutely wrong, and have been wrong for at least 10 years.

BTW we`re seeing a slow demise of IBM in favour of ARM atm in our automatication-business. And the more complex project-CUs have long reverted back to x86 architecture.

@Phrixotrichus
Can't make a valid point without denegrating to an insult.
In response I don't feel theres much you have said either that doesn't mirror the absolutist ravings of wide-eyed Home PC extremists. However because its the internet and you just never know whom you are talking to I don't see a reason to make a point of it.

IBM's 'slow demise' has been a 'catch-phrase' ever since they'd commercially seperated from the mainstream in the mid - late 80's.
ARM had a good showing back in Nov. but they're a long way off enjoying IBM's scope.

Projects are never driven by best tech on offer but by eventual cost effectiveness and ARMs Cortex CU's whilst desirable aren't that agressively exceeding what IBM have on offer to tip the scales in thier favour; that being said in the sphere of integrated circuitry ARM are valuble.
As far as automatication is concerned I'm sure its much the same muchness.

Projects are never driven by best tech on offer but by eventual cost effectiveness

Click to expand...

Most of the time we decide by best offer of course, but we`ve been getting more and more "we want stuff that is still fast in a few years"-customers during the last ~5 years, so we`ve been going for maximum performance rather often lately.
You should REALLY stop with generalizations, because they are wrong 99% of the time, especially concerning ANYTHING involving electronics. That market has grown way too big and fast to generalize anything.
I´m one of the persons who decides on the hardware we use for our automation projects. I know IBMs/ARMs/Intels/AMDs actual offerings, including their spec sheets for specific tasks/hardware. Integrated is still pretty much IBM, with ARM attacking on all sides. Power is a money/performance/power consumption gamble between Intel/AMD atm.
All I´m saying, is that your generalization is wrong, because you can`t generalize on this topic anymore. That has been a thing of the past for almost 10 years now...
The hardware architecture portefolio has become incredibly diverse, and saying stuff like "ibm is generally faster because they are using RISC" is both wrong and extremely out of date.....

I was playing a bunch of older games on older systems & handhelds today. When I went back to my newer handheld and systems I noticed I didn't really care how the games looked.

Playing games like Trine 2, CoD, NSMBU, etc I never even thought about how they looked. I wasn't looking to see if there were any jaggies, if it was 1080p or 720p, 60fps or 30fps none of that. I usually tend to look for those things & more but after having my blast from the past moment I just didn't care anymore.

I guess I've gotten to a point where graphics don't mean anything to me.

I still like graphics though. I do want my games to look visually pleasing regardless of the system it's on. Whether it's through art direction or brute technology it's important for a game to make a stimulating world to play in. It has been since the beginning of games.

I like the clean and colorful look of NSMB U but also love the complexity of Trine 2. I agree that we are past the point of a videogame actually looking bad.

Ya it's crazy looking back and how much fun you'd have regardless of how the game looked sometimes even played. I gave up the graphics thing after 64 and PS1 it's just sad that ppl measure a game on how it looks, i feel bad for them.

thank you for your input. Now I know what your opinion is. But it meant nothing to me coming in to the thread, and pretty much remains the same. Thank you though. Now, I'm going to give my attention to another topic.